Ruth Bader Ginsberg

[neil7908]

Very sad to see she has passed away.

Absolutely disgusted that Mitch McConnell and Republicans are going to put a vote through before the election after refusing one for Obama in the final year of his presidency as they wanted to wait until after the election.

The next nominee to the Supreme Court in the US is genuinely as important as the November election. If Trump appoints a 3rd justice it will mean an extreme conservative court for decades to come, and the likely end of abortion, sensible gun control and any other remotely progressive policies.

I honestly fear for America in the years ahead if his pick goes through, even if the Democrats win in November.

[Beefster]

It’s sad news. What a woman she was.

Trump will be torn between replacing her before the election or dangling the carrot to shore up Republicans for the election. Ultimately, though I think they’ll go for a replacement before the election. This is a once in generation chance for them.

[lapsedhibee]

It’s sad news. What a woman she was.

Trump will be torn between replacing her before the election or dangling the carrot to shore up Republicans for the election. Ultimately, though I think they’ll go for a replacement before the election. This is a once in generation chance for them.

Especially if the Supreme Court has a role in the event of a disputed election result, or in determining to what extent a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

[Beefster]

Especially if the Supreme Court has a role in the event of a disputed election result, or in determining to what extent a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

Great point. I was thinking that the Republican Party would want a replacement before and Trump a replacement after but I hadn’t thought of the benefits to Trump of just getting a replacement in quickly.

[neil7908]

Especially if the Supreme Court has a role in the event of a disputed election result, or in determining to what extent a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

Very good point. The guy put 3 Republican Senators on his list of picks after all.

[Ozyhibby]

They need 4 republican senators to stick to their word and not try appoint a judge during an election. Surely that is doable?[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Great point. I was thinking that the Republican Party would want a replacement before and Trump a replacement after but I hadn’t thought of the benefits to Trump of just getting a replacement in quickly.

They will have a list of extremist white males, as young as possible. If Ted Cruz, (Hes younger than me, now THATS a depressing thought) is nominated he could be making laws banning abortion, selling off state assets and accelerating environmental crisis for the next 45 years. There are other even madder potential candidates like Tom Cotton from Arkansas. If there are a handful of principled GOP senators left (questionable) they could rebel against a truly extreme appointment, there will be horse trading and pressure exerted over the next few weeks...

[Hibernia&Alba]

It is sad news, and it couldn't have come at a worse time. Trump will nominate another rabid right winger; he's already made hundreds of such appointments in the lower courts, in addition to his SC appointments. Bad news for civil liberties, working people and the environment. The hypocrisy of McConnell and his cronies is appalling but totally unsurprising.

With the election just weeks away, will he be able to force it though in time?

[Mikey]

It is sad news, and it couldn't have come at a worse time. Trump will nominate another rabid right winger; he's already made hundreds of such appointments in the lower courts, in addition to his SC appointments. Bad news for civil liberties, working people and the environment. The hypocrisy of McConnell and his cronies is appalling but totally unsurprising.

With the election just weeks away, will he be able to force it though in time?

Even if he loses the election he's still the President until January.

[Bristolhibby]

Even if he loses the election he's still the President until January.

Which I find ridiculous.

I mean, why?

Very odd. “Yea, we know that this other guy has been elected, but we need a couple of months to sort things out”.

TBF this whole judge for life is a load of Bollox anyway.

While I’m at it, so is the Electoral College system.

J

[hibsbollah]

Which I find ridiculous.

I mean, why?

Very odd. “Yea, we know that this other guy has been elected, but we need a couple of months to sort things out”.

TBF this whole judge for life is a load of Bollox anyway.

While I’m at it, so is the Electoral College system.

J

We probably won’t know the outcome until a week after polling this year, because of corona and the high number of postal ballots. And if it’s close and even if it isn’t, Trump will probably mount legal challenges, he’s already said as much. There’s no way of knowing what’s coming next...a January Biden inauguration would be too good to be true but I have my doubts.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Even if he loses the election he's still the President until January.


Which I find ridiculous.

I mean, why?

Very odd. “Yea, we know that this other guy has been elected, but we need a couple of months to sort things out”.

TBF this whole judge for life is a load of Bollox anyway.

While I’m at it, so is the Electoral College system.

J

It does seem odd that a defeated incumbent could appoint someone to a lifetime appointment on the SC which could last decades. In theory, would Trump be within his rights to do that, even during a transition period?

[neil7908]

It does seem odd that a defeated incumbent could appoint someone to a lifetime appointment on the SC which could last decades. In theory, would Trump be within his rights to do that, even during a transition period?

I believe that the Senate still sits in the period after the inauguration but before the election so I think so.

Would normally be unthinkable but for these guys? They won't lose a wink of sleep over it.

[Mibbes Aye]

It does seem odd that a defeated incumbent could appoint someone to a lifetime appointment on the SC which could last decades. In theory, would Trump be within his rights to do that, even during a transition period?

Senate confirms supreme court appointments. The Republicans have a slender majority but some, like Mitt Romney, abhor Trump. A third of the Senate seats are voted on at the same time of the GE and the Democratic party will be looking to swing some of them, along with the vote on all the seats in the House of Representatives and thus secure Congress.

But to answer your point, Trump could seek to appoint a SC justice during the 'lame duck' period (assuming he doesn't actually win the GE) but it would potentially be bogged down in the Senate. Some Republicans have principles (yes, I know :greengrin) and would take grievance against what is essentially gerrymandering. Plus some of them hate Trump, simple as that.

If Trump were to win the GE, then the Democrats regaining the Senate is the only realistic way of blocking a Trump appointment.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I believe that the Senate still sits in the period after the inauguration but before the election so I think so.

Would normally be unthinkable but for these guys? They won't lose a wink of sleep over it.

What about the practicalities? The Democrats would go berserk if Trump tried to make the appointment after a defeat and would do everything to delay it. There can't be a precedent for such a thing, I imagine. As you say, the hypocrisy of the Republicans in congress will be shameless, and they will have no compunction about helping Trump do it, despite their disgraceful behaviour when Obama was trying to appoint a SC judge. Of course if Trump wins, it's all hypothetical.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Senate confirms supreme court appointments. The Republicans have a slender majority but some, like Mitt Romney, abhor Trump. A third of the Senate seats are voted on at the same time of the GE and the Democratic party will be looking to swing some of them, along with the vote on all the seats in the House of Representatives and thus secure Congress.

But to answer your point, Trump could seek to appoint a SC justice during the 'lame duck' period (assuming he doesn't actually win the GE) but it would potentially be bogged down in the Senate. Some Republicans have principles (yes, I know :greengrin) and would take grievance against what is essentially gerrymandering. Plus some of them hate Trump, simple as that.

If Trump were to win the GE, then the Democrats regaining the Senate is the only realistic way of blocking a Trump appointment.

Thanks for that. If Trump loses, he would try to cause as much trouble as possible and would love causing a meltdown about nominating a SC judge before he left office.

[hibsbollah]

It does seem odd that a defeated incumbent could appoint someone to a lifetime appointment on the SC which could last decades. In theory, would Trump be within his rights to do that, even during a transition period?

Yes, absolutely. It’s been done before (Adams I think) but in normal times it’s frowned upon because making political appointments after losing the mandate is so clearly against popular sentiment.

Until the Great Depression it was even worse, before then the inauguration wasn’t until March. Roosevelt had to wait 4 months to be sworn in and start inacting the New Deal, so the country lurched from recession to starvation and nothing was getting done. There was a constitutional amendment passed just after and from then on inauguration was moved to January 20th. Still, he had more time to practice that ‘fear itself’ speech, probably why it scanned so well :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yes, absolutely. It’s been done before (Adams I think) but in normal times it’s frowned upon because making political appointments after losing the mandate is so clearly against popular sentiment.

Until the Great Depression it was even worse, before then the inauguration wasn’t until March. Roosevelt had to wait 4 months to be sworn in and start inacting the New Deal, so the country lurched from recession to starvation and nothing was getting done. There was a constitutional amendment passed just after and from then on inauguration was moved to January 20th. Still, he had more time to practice that ‘fear itself’ speech, probably why it scanned so well :greengrin

FDR the greatest American president, in my humble and very biased opinion. They even had to change the constitution to stop him winning. American politics and society has moved so far rightwards since then that he probably wouldn't get the Democratic nomination today. He would be called a communist and a dangerous extremist.

[Mibbes Aye]

In amongst all this, it is probably worth reflecting that one thing Donald Trump isn't, is an an idealogue.

He might pander to the Christian Right in order to seek votes but he is not of their kind, and many in that cohort will look at his behaviour, comments and decisions and find they clash with their own value base (whether you agree with their value base is another matter).

It is always a bit depressing when politics descends into character assassination but Trump is an open goal for the Biden campaign, in not switching but merely turning off soft Repubicans who cherish 'family values', going to church etc.

Kamala Harris might be suited to leading that line. I certainly expect her to challenge the very Christian Mike Pence on his boss's behaviour and comments when the VP debate comes around. Might be a squirming night for VP MP.

[neil7908]

What about the practicalities? The Democrats would go berserk if Trump tried to make the appointment after a defeat and would do everything to delay it. There can't be a precedent for such a thing, I imagine. As you say, the hypocrisy of the Republicans in congress will be shameless, and they will have no compunction about helping Trump do it, despite their disgraceful behaviour when Obama was trying to appoint a SC judge. Of course if Trump wins, it's all hypothetical.

I think the plan is to race to get the vote done before the election. There are 4 Republican Senators to watch if that's the case - Collins, Murkowski, Graham and Romney. The first 3 have stated unequivocally on record that they would not approve a nomination in the exact situation we now find ourselves in. Romney has shown himself to hold some principles and the guts to stand up to Trump.

I'm not sure how many of them are up for reelection in November though. That will be key - ultimately no senator will vote in a way that will jeopardise their chances of reelection.

[Beefster]

I think the plan is to race to get the vote done before the election. There are 4 Republican Senators to watch if that's the case - Collins, Murkowski, Graham and Romney. The first 3 have stated unequivocally on record that they would not approve a nomination in the exact situation we now find ourselves in. Romney has shown himself to hold some principles and the guts to stand up to Trump.

I'm not sure how many of them are up for reelection in November though. That will be key - ultimately no senator will vote in a way that will jeopardise their chances of reelection.

Lindsey Graham has already changed his mind. No surprise really, he’s the weasliest of all weasels.

[Keith_M]

Very sad to see she has passed away.

Absolutely disgusted that Mitch McConnell and Republicans are going to put a vote through before the election after refusing one for Obama in the final year of his presidency as they wanted to wait until after the election.

The next nominee to the Supreme Court in the US is genuinely as important as the November election. If Trump appoints a 3rd justice it will mean an extreme conservative court for decades to come, and the likely end of abortion, sensible gun control and any other remotely progressive policies.

I honestly fear for America in the years ahead if his pick goes through, even if the Democrats win in November.


Isn't this yet more evidence that the US is totally messed up?

The judiciary should be totally independent of political control, but the Head of State of the US appoints a Supreme Court judge? What a total mess of a country.

[neil7908]

Isn't this yet more evidence that the US is totally messed up?

The judiciary should be totally independent of political control, but the Head of State of the US appoints a Supreme Court judge? What a total mess of a country.

Absolutely, it's bonkers. If Trump gets this nomination through then every Democratic President for decades will find their platform challenged in a court picked by an extreme right wing President.

It might sound overly dramatic but if Trump gets this through it will be the end of any genuine chance of reform or progress for a generation, regardless of whether or not Biden wins.

Abortion rights may go, sensible gun restrictions are a non starter.

[Ozyhibby]

Absolutely, it's bonkers. If Trump gets this nomination through then every Democratic President for decades will find their platform challenged in a court picked by an extreme right wing President.

It might sound overly dramatic but if Trump gets this through it will be the end of any genuine chance of reform or progress for a generation, regardless of whether or not Biden wins.

Abortion rights may go, sensible gun restrictions are a non starter.

The number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed. I think the democrats will take it to 13 if they force this through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

The number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed. I think the democrats will take it to 13 if they force this through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. From an outsider they should also be fixed term appointments. Like say 10 years. That way you keep continuity and justices don’t flip flop depending on political whims.

J

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://youtu.be/4dYWnCrUmEg

Coney-Barrett (surprise, surprise) is a very religious conservative (Catholic): strongly anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-worker rights, anti-environmental protections. If confirmed, Roe v Wade, and a woman's right to a termination will be under greater pressure than ever.